Opinion
November 23, 1970
In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review appellant's determination disapproving petitioners' application for a special on-premises liquor license for premises in East Meadow, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 3, 1970, which (1) annulled the determination and (2) directed appellant to issue such license to petitioners. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs; determination confirmed; and petition dismissed on the merits. A drinking establishment, such as is proposed here, is a potential and continuing source of future trouble unless managed by people of experience, strength and ability to run a good place ( Matter of Soul Scene v. State Liq. Auth., 35 A.D.2d 574). The record does not show that petitioner Konugkis has such managerial ability. It does show that petitioner Herms, who appears to be the prime mover in the enterprise, has a half interest in a tavern in Massapequa in addition to being the sole owner of a tavern in Freeport which has in the past been the scene of numerous disturbances. Should the instant application respecting premises in East Meadow be granted, he will be dividing his time and attention among the three places in the three communities, with the consequent diminution of supervision. For the foregoing reasons, and on the record as a whole, it is our opinion that petitioners have not met their burden of showing that there was no possible scope for the reasonable exercise of discretion by appellant. "This is a burden the petitioners must discharge" ( Matter of Gambino v. State Liq. Auth., 4 A.D.2d 37, 38, affd. 4 N.Y.2d 997; see, also, Matter of Stracquadanio v. Department of Health of City of N.Y., 285 N.Y. 93, 95-96). Christ, P.J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.